Orissa High Court
Satyabrata Pradhan vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 7 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.27001 of 2024
Satyabrata Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Madhusmita Panda
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Ms. Babita Kumari Sahu,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
07.03.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the
documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with
the following prayers:-
"Under the circumstances cited above, Your
Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit the
case of the petitioner/writ petition issue Rule NISI by
calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause why the
petitioner's case shall not be considered and upon
failing to show cause/cause said rule be made
absolute;
And thereby the Opp. Parties be directed,
directing him to consider the genuine grievance of the
petitioner for regularization his service in the light of the
principle decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
keeping in view of Annexure-4, 9 & 10 to the writ
petition.
And thereby the Opp. Party No.2 and 3 be
directed directing them to disburse all the
consequential service benefits, which is rightly accrued
to him;
And pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem just and proper for the ends of
justice."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition seeking regularization of his service. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner in course of his argument submitted that the
Petitioner has been working continuously since 2011 as a casual
labourer. She further contended that the Petitioner is working for
almost 13 years as a casual labourer, however, the Opposite
Parties have not regularized his service. She further referred to a
judgment of this Court in Rabindra Nahak v. State of Odisha &
others (W.P.(C) No.14209 of 2021, decided on 05.07.2021) in
support of her contention. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be
directed to regularize the service of the Petitioner within a stipulated
period of time.
5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that although the
Petitioner has stated that he has filed a representation under
Annexure-5 to the writ petition. However, on perusal of the said
representation, it appears that there is no acknowledgement receipt
of the aforesaid representation. In such view of the matter, learned
Additional Standing Counsel expressed her apprehension as to
whether such a representation has been received by the concerned
Opposite Party or not. In such view of the matter, learned Additional
Standing Counsel submitted that the Petitioner be directed to
approach the Opposite Party No.2 afresh by ventilating his
grievance and in such event, Opposite Party No.2 be directed to
consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a
stipulated period of time.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the background facts as well as the materials on record, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of
admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh detailed
representation along with supporting documents within three weeks
from today before the Opposite Party No.2. In such eventuality the
Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the same strictly in accordance
with law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. While considering the representation of the
Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 shall take into consideration the
order dated 05.07.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.14209
of 2021. The final decision so taken on such representation be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
